Overview

This briefing summarizes the protests that have been taking place in Iran since late December 2025. A currency crash and cost-of-living crisis led to nationwide anti-regime demonstrations. On January 8 and 9, 2026, the security forces responded with extreme violence, while imposing a near-total communications blackout. This has made it difficult to determine the exact number of injuries and arrests, leading to conflicting estimates. The information blockade is itself part of the repression and complicates crisis diplomacy. At the same time, the crisis received rare international attention: UN human rights bodies responded, Western countries tightened sanctions, and the debate on the role of the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) gained political weight. Germany participated in EU actions and engaged in internal debates on protection, deportations, and support for civil society. The key question for Berlin is how repression and further military instability in Iran affect regional escalation risks, nuclear dynamics and European security.

Situation Assessment

At the end of December 2025, an unexpected drop in currency value, coupled with escalating costs, sparked a wave of protests. Initially, these rallies conveyed frustration over the economy, but they swiftly evolved into demands for change in government. By early January 2026, demonstrations, work stoppages, and unrest erupted in various cities and regions. Mobilization initially drew on trade and bazaar structures, but it soon expanded to include worker, student and neighbourhood networks. On 8–9 January, the escalation reached a particularly lethal level. A near-total communications blackout and targeted information control accompanied the security response. This included network shutdowns and pressure on the media, hospitals and families. As in earlier protest waves (2019, 2022), mass arrests, prosecutions and tighter digital surveillance measures followed. The worst violence was directed at ethnic minority regions. The number of fatalities is subject to debate due to censorship and varying data sources. While government-reported deaths totalled at least 3,117, independent monitoring groups claim higher, albeit sometimes unverifiable, numbers. Protests on the streets began to wane in mid-January, and by early February, the state had regained dominance over public spaces without addressing the underlying causes of the crisis. Internationally, various actors responded quickly with harsher measures: UN bodies addressed the events, the EU adopted new sanctions at the end of January, and Germany supported these measures, including the push for the IRGC to be placed on the sanctions list.

Drivers & Escalation Dynamics

The trigger was not a single event, but rather a combination of economic, security, and legitimacy crises. From autumn 2025 onwards, the intensity of sanctions pressure increased, as did uncertainty regarding the future. The rial lost its value quickly, while incomes were eroded by inflation and supply shortages over a short period. Numerous studies directly connect the economic downturn to the resumption of UN sanctions (‘snapback’) and the confluence of wartime conditions and economic isolation. This coincided with the June 2025 ‘Twelve-Day War’ between Israel and the United States, which directly bombed Iranian nuclear facilities. War damage, increased risk premiums, anticipated sanctions, and a pervasive sense of danger eroded the regime’s implicit social contract (‘stability in exchange for political subordination’). Additionally, the economic turmoil intersected with decades of built-up frustration over governance, including corruption, perceived impunity, and political exclusion. Concurrently, the demonstration playbooks were moulded by the events of 2019 and particularly 2022/23 (‘Woman, Life, Freedom’): faster dissemination, lower entry requirements, broader social involvement, and more radical slogans became the new norm. Additionally, the logic of escalation can explain the intensity of violence. Mobilization was broad, but organizationally fragmented. Strikes, closures, mourning marches, and nighttime actions increased pressure without providing leadership that could be ‘switched off’. According to reports, the most intense violence occurred on January 8–9, 2026. This coincided with a near-total communication shutdown, a pattern that has been observed in previous waves of protests. The authorities responded with a familiar cycle: military suppression of unrest, mass arrests, legal action, and information control. Again, particularly lethal phases coincided with sweeping internet shutdowns, while hard repression repeatedly concentrated in peripheral and minority regions. This makes it harder to verify the information, fuels rumours, and can further drive the escalation spiral.

Protest Profile

In 2026, there was a social uprising that was broad in scope, but structurally fragmented. It was initially sparked not just by political activists, but also by economically affected groups, including bazaar traders, small business owners, and the urban middle class whose purchasing power had been eroded by currency and price shocks. Workers, students and neighbourhood networks quickly joined the movement. In some places, strikes and work stoppages in key industries and transportation increased the pressure. The previous waves, including 2019 and 2022, provided a strategic blueprint, with rapid dissemination, cross-class involvement, and increasingly combative slogans, all without the need for a persistent, unifying leadership. Geographically, regions on the periphery, often populated by minorities, were particularly affected in the most dangerous phases, where repression was particularly deadly. The organization therefore relied less on formal structures than on loose, locally rooted nodes: spontaneous street rallies, mourning marches, or funerals as moments for mobilization; night-time actions; and short-notice coordination via digital channels. The state systematically disrupted these by imposing sweeping shutdowns, whitelisting, platform blocks, and pressure on journalists, clinics, and families. Diaspora actors increased international visibility and engaged with human rights mechanisms, but they were limited in their ability to overcome internal divisions.

State Response

In January 2026, the government responded in a typical manner: swiftly deploying military forces onto the streets, making numerous arrests, and implementing a rigorous legal and communication protocol. This pattern of physical force and communication restriction has been consistent over the past decade, following a familiar cycle of ‘shock → mobilization → repression → legal/communications control’. During the days of January 8th and 9th, authorities prioritized dispersing large gatherings promptly. At the same time, raids and detention isolated activists, strike organizers, and local hubs (bazaars, universities, neighbourhoods). Tehran also used ‘information denial’: a near-total internet blackout, selective re-enablement (‘whitelisting’) or tiered access, and platform blocks that hindered coordination and prevented independent verification of fatality and arrest figures, which remain highly disputed. Human rights organizations and UN actors have also highlighted pressure on hospitals, journalists, and families, such as regarding documentation and funerals, in order to make it less visible and more expensive. In the justice system, there has been a tendency towards routine charges, severe sentences, even up to the death penalty, and the political framing of protests as a security threat. In the short term, this increases the regime’s ability to control. In the long term, however, it strengthens surveillance and ‘digital isolation’ tools, further undermines its legitimacy, and makes new protest cycles more likely.

International Attention & Reactions

The demonstrations garnered significant global interest, particularly due to the implementation of temporary communication blackouts, which impeded independent verification and influenced public opinion. Human rights organizations and the United Nations emphasized that internet and phone service disruptions constitute a human rights violation in themselves, as well as an obstacle to reporting potential atrocities. On the international stage, the UN bodies addressed the situation in an urgent session of the Human Rights Council. They extended the investigative mandates to document potential human rights violations. In parallel, a formal process was initiated for a potential terrorist designation of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards (IRGC). The United States and the United Kingdom also expanded restrictive measures. Tehran denied the allegations and responded with summonses and counter-statements. Foreign policy escalation also had an impact on regional security and nuclear dossiers. The visibility of the issue was further enhanced by the demonstrations of the diaspora in Europe.

Germany & EU: Political Response and Immediate Implications

Berlin responded in January and February 2026 in three ways: by publicly condemning violence, sending diplomatic signals, and actively participating in the EU’s restrictive measures. At the same time, domestic debates were underway on issues such as protection, deportations, and support for civil society. At the EU level, the sanctions decisions of 29 January 2026 were pivotal, including asset freezes, travel bans and export restrictions. Germany also supported the EU’s decision to designate the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) as a terrorist organization and initiated the subsequent procedure. In the domestic sphere, visible diaspora mobilization, including demonstrations in Berlin, and the debate on internet shutdowns and fatality figures shaped the discourse. Within the German Parliament, there was a general agreement to ‘increase pressure’, with some differences in emphasis on the severity of punitive actions and on protective measures. This led to an immediate escalation of diplomatic tensions with Tehran, including Iranian countermeasures in their statements, and a stronger connection between Iranian policy and the EU’s deliberations on human rights, sanctions, and regional stability.

Outlook: Scenarios & Early-Warning Indicators

In the short term, it is likely that the state will return to its cyclical pattern of shock, mobilization, repression, and communication control. This will be possible without any open splits in the security elite becoming apparent. However, the legitimacy and economic crises remain the main drivers. It is more likely that recurring, sporadic demonstrations will occur, bolstered by external triggers such as renewed military action or further sanctions. Early warning signs include renewed currency fluctuations and price hikes, simultaneous strikes in the market, transportation, or energy sectors, larger demonstrations, regional spikes in violence in remote provinces, and new, widespread internet blackouts.